Farr v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1587 (GRC) (29 December 2025)

Farr v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1587 (GRC) (29 December 2025)

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 166 DPA 2018 to consider the applications because the Respondent provided an outcome to the complaints, fulfilling the procedural requirements. Section 166 is limited to procedural failings, and no such failing was found. The Tribunal cannot consider the merits or direct amendment of the Respondent's response.

Citation
[2025] UKFTT 1587 (GRC)
Parties
Appellant: Mark Farr; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
29 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Data Protection Procedural Application / Strike Out Application, Determined Without a Hearing
Outcome
Applications struck out for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Procedural Requirements for Complaints, Scope of Tribunal Powers
Data Protection Information Rights Administrative Law Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018 Tribunal Jurisdiction Procedural Requirements for Complaints Scope of Tribunal Powers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Farr

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Data Protection Procedural Application / Strike Out Application, Determined Without a Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 166 DPA 2018 to consider the applications
  2. 2 Whether the Information Commissioner failed to take appropriate procedural steps in response to the complaints

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 166 DPA 2018 to consider the applications because the Respondent provided an outcome to the complaints, fulfilling the procedural requirements. Section 166 is limited to procedural failings, and no such failing was found. The Tribunal cannot consider the merits or direct amendment of the Respondent's response.

Court Disposition

Applications struck out for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The applications are struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with them.